Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. You'll receive an email shortly with a link to create a new password. If you have trouble finding this email, please check your spam folder.

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To access our archive, please log in or register now and read two articles from our archive every month for free. For unlimited access to our archive, as well as to the unrivaled analysis of PS On Point, subscribe now.

Agree with author that the Assad problem has hit a dead end. But the article itself is completely one dimensional. He is literally says "Assad is the devil. Ends justify means. Lets get rid of him, whichever way we can."
Saddam Hussein was a blue eyed boy of West as long as he was fighting Iran. He goes after Kuwait and suddenly the West realizes this guy is the devil on earth. The dictator is killed but a nation is still paying the price - even 12 years after the war ended.
Russia and US made Afghanistan their theater of war for nearly a decade. Worst kind of proxy war that destroyed yet another country.
Calling armed groups as "moderate" and "justified" is totally incorrect. Remember, one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. If Assad was the problem, he should have been dealt with directly - using military action, using economic sanctions, using political influence. NOT by supplying arms and training groups opposing his rule. That is called proxy war. Europe is now paying the price for its own misadventures - influx of refugees.

M. Levy has apparently assumed the posture of apologist for a "New Middle East" and the hubris of the George W. Bush administration. The effort to overthrow the Baath regime in Syria - after the destruction of the Baath regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq - should be recognized for what it represents - the manipulation of sectarian tensions among Arab populations to return to the politics of divide-and-rule that facilitated Anglo-French control amid the ruins of the Ottoman empire.
M. Levy says "The West must decide what to do" even after the larger group that includes China and Russia met in Vienna for discussions. M. Levy needs to recognize that the world has evolved into one being reshaped by the rise of Asia.
Syria's fate will be decided by a larger community of countries and that may be its salvation - just as the Iran negotiations were accomplished by the P5+1 group.

The writer doesn't know much about the ground truths in Syria. He has a biased and negative opinion regarding the Asad's democratic government. Even for a medium-skilled reader of news, Assad represents a looser that hasn't correctly play his game when he could. Off coarse his biggest mistake was to crack down a peaceful protest, but who can say that all the casualties caused by the Syrian civil war is only the responsibility of this single person? Why we should close our eyes on massive weapon supply by anti-Assad allies such as Saudis or US? It is very unlikely that in a similar social crisis anywhere except middle-east, someone suggest supplying one side with heavy weapons!!! Even kids know that when they fight each other, no-one should give them stone.

You should know U.S. is iving weapons to rebels. They are based on Wolfoviz doctrine. You also should know what U.S. Army did to German people just after WWII. Nearly one million people made to die of starvation. I am annoyed these pathetic article written by a so called Philosopher.

I am deeply frustrated as the country Syria will soon cease to exist:
Let us consider 2 hypothetical scenarios: 1) Assad gets killed by some actors on the field, either by airstrike by the allied forces, or beheaded by that nihilistic death cult called ISIS.
What´s next then?
Who will fill the void? Who will control the civil war between FSA and ISIS? Will there ever be a free election? If so, and if the ISIS comes to power by fair election?
Danger and danger that I only see.
Therefore, the most prudent way would be to destroy ISIS first and then come to a power sharing deal between FSA ( Free Syrian Army) and the Bath party. I think this is the most viable and least dangerous way to building a new Syria minus Assad.
Another way would be to redefine Iraq and Syria´s borders and break the two countries along ethnic lines. Shia part remaining friendly to Iran, while Sunni part to Saudi Arabia

Whoever advocates that the Kissinger plan of dividing the Middle East, including Syria, into sectarian enclaves with the hope of “protecting” the “Jewish State” is looking at creating a problem that is at least 10 folds of what the world is witnessing today. It is this same plan that has brought the Middle East, Europe and other parts of the world to the state of affairs that the world is witnessing today. Constructing walls, barbed wires across boundaries will never and has never stopped any aggression. ISIS comes from a wide spectrum of the world societies and not only from the prisons of the Assad Regime and the main reason why they came from the wide spectrum of the world societies is because they saw a fertile land that could accommodate them and their “dream” ideology, an ideology that can never become a reality, albeit an “Independent sovereign Islamic State” or, on the other side of the spectrum, an “Independent viable Jewish State”.

Bernard-Henri Lévy doesn't have to tell us that any "policy for Syria that posits Assad as an “alternative” to the Islamic State is simply not viable". In fact many of the current ISIS leadership were released from jail by Assad in May 2011. Later he systematically targeted "positions held by moderate rebels," while "sparing the Islamic State’s stronghold in Raqqa". Lévy says "Assad created the monster that he is now pretending to fight."
More appropriately Assad helped create "the monster" which he needs and uses as a pretext for his brutal crackdown on the opposition. This explains the "symbiotic relationship" that John Kerry called.
Lévy compares this relationship to the Stalin-Hitler non-aggression pact, the devils' alliance of 1939, and says, "jihadism is the fascism of our day, infected with plans, ideas, and a will to purity comparable to those of the Nazis. I was one of the first to suggest the comparison some 20 years ago".
Indeed, ISIS presents itself as the only alternative to Assad, who in turn purports to be the last bulwark against ISIS. Both seem to be dependent on one and other to get rid of the moderate rebels.
Assad's propaganda portrays the 2011 protests as a fundamentalist Sunni movement that threatened minorities. He has always presented himself as a secular leader who protected minorities and guaranteed stability. The airstrikes launched by the US-led coaltion against ISIS have been seen by many as a perverse affect of supporting the Assad regime.
The way Russia intervenes in Syria sends also the cynical message that the West should choose between either ISIS or Assad. Critics say this poses a much bigger threat than Islamic State, and Western policy on Syria is flawed.
It's unclear how Assad will be able to regain lost territories. Nevertheless he might want to create an Alawite enclave as a last resort if the course of the conflict forced him out of Damascus. While Assad accepts the bitter reality that his country is on the verge of a breakup, Western leaders and including Lévy still cling to the false belief that Syria would still be able to stay together as a unified country. Given the unthinkable notion of a national reconciliation, a breakup may bring an end to this conflict. The international community could help midwife the partition of this war-stricken country.

The West (and now Russia) has got itself caught on the wrong side of a nationalist revolt now led by the Islamic State. That's why you see so many comparisons to the Vietnam war. As there, the ideological coloring of the movement is intended to draw support from neighboring countries. How deep those ideological inclinations go is another question. What's not in question is the goal of the movement -- a unified Sunni Arab state. None of the small Shia, Christian, Kurdish and Jewish statelets are comfortable with that; neither are many of the world's powers, given the territory Sunni Arabs occupy adjacent to the Suez Canal and the Persian Gulf oil fields. And that's the problem: no one likes fighting nationalists, but a lot is at stake.

Go and say that again to the Arab Spring countries... There was nothing peaceful about the people uprising in the region.

Assad had nothing to do with what happened in other countries in the region where the Islamic State has done the same thing they are doing in Syria, or worst in many cases, so please take a good look and stop talking nonsense.

The way I see it, the the way events unfolded, Hassad and the Egyptian militaries were right and we were wrong, there is no doubt about that.

Yea , good idea, Mr. Levy.
I can't derstand either, why those virulent people who are neither Jews nor Wahhabis insist on surviving, even striving. They should instead simply dissapear, be banned by the U.N.

It's unfortunate this fine philosophic mind has transformed into a political propagandist - to say the least.
Assad will more or less survive because Obama never wanted him out - Putin just might fulfil Obama's wish....!

Iraq & Syria were ruled by Baathist political parties for decades. US intervention & occupation of Iraq (2003) set the Sunni-Shia internal (racial) fight which now conflagrates ME.

Assad is protecting his Alawite brothers and other non-Sunni minorities (including Christians) in what is left of Syria from a multi-faceted Sunni insurgency, an insurgency that is backed by Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states. He’s been doing it for a lot longer than is apparent. For a good many years, he kept a lid on the situation with brutal repression just as Saddam Hussein suppressed the Shiites in Iraq. Syria and Iraq are now failed states. The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is but a sideshow. The Syrian war is the precursor support act for the main show which will be an all out Sunni/Shiite conflagration which is building. So far this war has been fought by proxy – the main players– Saudi Arabia and Iran - with Turkey (Sunni) also in for a cut of the action, seeking to annihilate the Kurds - will confront each other in due course. Remember the brutal and frantic Iraq/Iran war of the 1980s. Western Syria/Iraq will be carved up. Assad’s Syria, now with overt Russian backing, will probably survive. It would not surprise if the US secretly supports the Russian incursion, Russia doing what the US could not be seen to do, supporting a brutal regime and a regime at odds with the Saudis, a US client state. The irony is that the US seemingly supports and is militarizing Saudi Arabia, one of the prime backers of the Sunni insurgency and the promoter of puritanical fundamentalist Islamic ideology and jihad around the world, presenting one of the greatest threats to the security of the West. Perhaps before anyone contemplates the demise of Assad, they should consider the above.

The first two conclusions of the “mutual understanding” resulting from the October 30 Vienna peace talks on Syria expose the fundamental flaw: both points say the same thing – that the “state” is more important to these officials than the “people.” Point 1 calls for preservation of Syria, even though it is precisely the existence of that post-colonial institution that lies at the root of the endless mistreatment of the minorities shoved into it. Point 1 serves the convenience of global leaders eager for stability and influence rather than helping the people who live there. Point 2 calls for the preservation of “state institutions;” in so far as I am aware, the only state institution that currently functions in Syria is Assad’s barrel-bomb war machine. Only with Point 3 is any attention granted those poor people in what used to be called “Syria” who have not yet succeeded in emigrating. And who in this world ever remembers “point 3” of any list?
Whatever may have been accomplished with a wink during lunch I cannot say, but the document these diplomats released gives no hint of anything more than a tragic lowest common denominator sellout of the Syrian people by governments trying to maximize short-term benefits and apparently incapable of imagining creative, positive-sum solutions. The participants in this little meeting should contemplate this: the failure of the Vienna meeting to demonstrate progress constitutes a huge victory for the Islamic State.

I fully agree with the writer on this occasion. The survival of the Assad regime is not an option and cannot be an option. It is the most evil of all regimes and used all weapons at his disposal including the WMDs’ that he had (and most probably still has despite the propaganda that followed the removal of some the chemicals that he had in stores). Bush Jr. and Blair went after the wrong guy, and the wrong regime. Iraq did not have any WMDs’ but Syria had and still has and the regime will not hesitate for a minute to use them against their own people and others. Whoever defends this despicable regime must read first its history since it was established over 5 decades ago and the atrocities that the Assad Baathist regime has committed not only in Syria but across the Middle East and neighbouring countries, like Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq. ISIS are a minor threat to the global community compared to the Assad regime who has proven what it can, is willing to do and has actually done, but people tend to have very short memories. I am very surprised the writer did not mention the WMDs’ which were about to start WWIII a couple of years ago! In any event, the solution to the Syrian/ Refugees, Middle Eastern crises is quite simple really. The Lebanese model of 19+ religions all co-existing and living together for centuries (through family or other ties) can and should be replicated across the Middle East. But for this to happen, the US must first renege on the Kissinger plan of dividing the Middle East amongst sectarian communities (a plan which was developed to secure Israel) and must work honestly and seriously with the other regional players, including Russia at imposing a viable solution by protecting peoples dignity, cultural, heritage, religious and other sensitivities.

Extremism only leads to more extremism. Syria was never at peace with itself, not unless you approve of dictatorship regimes and of people vanishing without any reason, trace or sight by SS units in broad daylight. As I said in my earlier comment, one should read the history of the Assad Baathist regime before drawing to the wrong conclusions. Today in the media, it has been reported that WMD was again used by the forces loyal to the Assad regime in Syria (so effectively it is still business as usual over there with the WMDs’). The propaganda of a couple of years ago was just to let Obama off the hook and to save his “Peace Noble price”. What Syria is witnessing today is a sectarian war and other countries should stay out of it. ISIS, I repeated several times, is embedded amongst the population of many countries and not only in Syria. The bombing / bringing down of the Russian Jet this week over Sinai confirms this theory. Yes you are correct, ISIS is dangerous, but they are all over the place and not only in Syria. They are spread/ing very fast like cancer. They must be removed but to remove them you must remove first their root cause and that is the Assad Regime.

Project syndicate accepts submissions from professors. But what it does not do is ensure they act free of influence. Rather, their opinions are for sale in a marketplace which hopes to achieve certain outcomes. A full on invasion of Syria would cost billions - and those billions are mostly paid for equipment. A lot of profit for certain companies rests on going to war but there are no particular companies who will profit from peace. Tale as old as time.

There is indeed an argument that the IS or some of the allied AQ-affiliated "rebel" forces under may be prefererable to Assad. I don't think it is a strong argument but some points for it do exist. There is also an argument that once the "rebel" forces win, a religiously tolerant government could "emerge". Again not a strong one but one does exist.

What is presented here is blatant distortions, and ignores everything the world has learned in the past 10 years about benevolent interventions in the ME. Given BHL's obvious intelligence, these distortions are intentional. Here Project Syndicate is playing the part of the New York Times in 2002. Shame.

The first point: Mr. HENRI LÉVY if you are someone who is expected to influence international relation to create a “peaceful and prosperous” world, it won’t be more than what we currently are experiencing. Accusing Assad as a cause of human suffering, cultural, social, historical and political destruction that no nation experienced within last one century can only be explained as a justification of injustice policy of interventionists have been protecting and defending the standards of democracy in a selective way to maintain their own political interests.

The second point: Shortly, this much destruction (human life, physical, economic, social, historical and political) can only be done through a war conditions in the shadow of sophisticated weapons. There is no need for intellectual deepness to understand this technical point. Simply, if the West, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey hadn’t founded a civic army equipped with all types of weapons to fight against a legitimate army possessing all types of weapons these consequences wouldn’t have been unfolded. In other words, this destruction was done by the technical capability and scope of weapons. Had the interventionists expected that Assad wouldn’t have used his military power to defend what he had believed to defend? The interventionists can at least be honest to confess that they made mistake by calculating the strength of Assad and accept the responsibility by creating an unlawful civic army to topple someone who Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia (for the ethnical reason, America and Israel (because of their Middle East Policy) get rid of.

There is no discussion that Syria was not a democratic country like many other Arabic countries. However, it was not less democratic than countries with which America and West allied to fight for democracy in Syria. It is a tragic irony to see that Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar claiming democracy in Syria.

The third point: Interventionists have been regretting for not directly intervening to topple Assad and change the system. This would prevent ISIL to emerge and established peace and stability. The case of Iraq and Afghanistan then the case of Egypt and Libyan shows that democracy cannot be introduced like fashion. So the ISIL had already existed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Particularly Turkey, Qatar, and Turkey contributed to it directly.

If the interventionists had been more patient to put more and continues political pressures on Assad, who was (too) slow but nonetheless began to introduce reforms, in the beginning of the conflict, there is no doubt that a political solution sooner or later would have been found. Instead, all internal forces were mobilised to destabilise the country and create a conditions for their intervention. Simply, the worst political solution with Assad in the beginning would have been the best one to prevent this damage. It is a ugly fact that the interventionists are sitting at the table to discuss a political solution that they hadn’t rejected in the beginning.